Alvarez accepts ruling ending 4th term bid

July 28, 2012

Updated Aug. 21, 2013 1:17 p.m.

1 of 4

Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez, who serves as Santa Ana's mayor pro tem, said she has no plans to appeal a judge's decision that would deny her the ability to seek a fourth council term. "I respect the court's ruling on this matter of first impression and welcome the objectivity and precedent established by this ruling," she said. KEVIN SULLIVAN, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

1 of 4

Max Madrid, shown here at a 2005 dinner where he was honored for community service, sued Santa Ana City Clerk Maria Huizar, contending that Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez should be issued papers to seek a fourth tem on the City Council. PHOTO BY ARMANDO BROWN, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, TEXT BY RON GONZALES

1 of 4

Santa Ana City Clerk Maria Huizar, right, at a July 16, 2012 City Council meeting at which she was criticized by Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez over an opinion Huizar obtained, indicating that Alvarez can't seek reelection because of term limits. At far left is City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, and in the center is City Manager Paul Walters. RON GONZALES, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

1 of 4

A lawsuit was filed in Orange County Superior Court seeking to allow Santa Ana Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez, pictured, to run for a fourth term. She has joined the suit, which was initially filed by Max Madrid, a member of the city parks commission. PHOTO BYKEVIN SULLIVAN,THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, TEXT BY RON GONZALES

Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez, who serves as Santa Ana's mayor pro tem, said she has no plans to appeal a judge's decision that would deny her the ability to seek a fourth council term. "I respect the court's ruling on this matter of first impression and welcome the objectivity and precedent established by this ruling," she said.KEVIN SULLIVAN, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

POLL

Excerpt from ruling by Judge Charles Margines

After examining all of the relevant extrinsic evidence in context, the court finds that Santa Ana had a long standing history of a two consecutive term limit for its councilmembers and that voters intended to change it to three consecutive terms with Measure D. Voters did not intend Measure D to allow incumbents to run for three more terms, as demonstrated by the ballot question, the impartial analysis by the City Attorney, and the argument against Measure D. The actual ballot question and the impartial analysis, when read together, show that Measure D was adding one term to the two consecutive term limit. The argument against Measure D shows that its opponents understood it to provide another four years, not another twelve years. There is no evidence to show that the voters intended to completely ignore Santa Ana’s prior two consecutive term limit and start afresh with a three consecutive term limit.

SANTA ANA – A Santa Ana councilwoman said Saturday that she will accept without appeal a judge's decision that would deny her the ability to seek a fourth term.

Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez said she was looking for an objective decision on the issue of whether she could seek another term.

"I work by the justice system," said Alvarez, a prosecutor. "I respect the system wholeheartedly. If it's a reasonable conclusion that is reached, then we move on."

She issued the following statement:

"It has been my honor and privilege to serve the residents of Santa Ana in my capacity as a councilmember. I am proud of the work I have accomplished and I am proud to call Santa Ana my home. I respect the court's ruling on this matter of first impression and welcome the objectivity and precedent established by this ruling. Although the court's ruling signifies an end to my tenure as a councilmember, it opens up an endless number of opportunities for me to continue serving the community for which I care very much. The experience I take with me is priceless and I thank our community for it. I leave the council seat with no regrets and I look forward to the next chapter in my life. Thank you to all those that believed in my leadership and thank you to all the hard working people that make this city thrive."

A Santa Ana parks commissioner, in an action joined by Alvarez, sought a court order directing the city clerk to issue to her nomination papers so that she can seek to run for a fourth term in November.

Police Sgt. Jose Gonzalez, Santa Ana's public information officer, said that the city was notified by telephone Friday that Superior Court Judge Charles Margines was denying the request for the order.

"The judge upheld the city's decision to withhold nomination papers," Gonzalez said, adding that the city didn't have a written decision in hand. He said that City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho would withhold comment until she had a chance to review the judge's decision.

Alvarez, who serves as mayor pro tem and represents Ward 5, was elected to the council in November 2000. Her third term expires this year.

In 2008, city voters approved Measure D, a charter amendment backed heavily by developers, which extended term limits for council members to three terms.

In April, a lawsuit by resident Max Madrid said, City Clerk Maria Huizar indicated that Alvarez was barred from running for a fourth term because of the term limits and that she wouldn't issue Alvarez nomination papers. The nomination period for City Council elections began July 16. So far in Ward 5, magazine publisher Karina Onofre and Santa Ana school trustee Roman A. Reyna have pulled papers.

Onofre said she commended the judge's decision, saying that voters wanted a three-term limit.

"By Claudia joining in in Max Madrid's lawsuit against our city of Santa Ana, challenging the will and intent of our people, she was expressing that she felt she was above the law," Onofre said, "and rather than follow the law, wanted the law to follow her."

Madrid is the Ward 5 representative on the Board of Recreation and Parks, an Alvarez appointee.

Councilwoman Michele Martinez, who opposed Measure D, said she was relieved at the judge's decision.

"Measure D's intent was only for four more years. This is what the voters voted on," she said. "It was unfortunate that the clerk and the city had to be sued, to protect the intent of the measure and the voters....When I heard that the judge ruled in favor of Maria Huizar and the city, I felt relieved and joyful because justice was served on behalf of the voters. Now that we have an objective decision by the judge , it is my hope we can put this issue to rest and move forward."

Councilman Sal Tinajero, who supported Measure D,said that the measure’s language needed to be clarified because of competing interpretations. He said he preferred for a judge to make the decision, rather than the city.

He said that while he may not always have agreed with Alvarez, he believed her to be a strong councilwoman.

“She’s an individual who has worked tirelessly to be a voice for those who, for a very long time, were disenfranchised from the political process here in Santa Ana.”.

Madrid filed suit July 6 against Huizar. In court documents filed July 20, Judge Margines questioned whether Madrid had standing to sue. Alvarez joined the case as a petitioner on Tuesday, court records show.

At a court hearing Wednesday, the city, represented by Michell E. Abbott of Los Angeles, contended that Measure D precluded Alvarez from seeking a fourth term.

Abbott contended that when Measure D was adopted, there was a two-term limit, and that the charter amendment only amended the law in effect at the time.

"There is nothing in the 2008 amendment to suggest that the voters intended to change the two-term limit to a five-term limit, as petitioner now suggests," he contended in court documents.

Steven D. Baric, representing Madrid, argued that because the term limit measure went into effect in March 2008, Alvarez, first elected in 2000, was eligible to seek reelection for another term. He cited an opinion by the state Attorney General's Office that determined that Loomis' voter-approved term limit initiative can't be applied retroactively, and also contended that the law that voters adopted is ambiguous.

In court documents, Huizar said that last summer that residents asked whether Alvarez would be eligible to seek a fourth term. She obtained a legal opinion and provided it to the City Council last November. The city in October was billed $8,444.73 by Abbott's law firm, Richards Watson Gershon.

At a City Council meeting earlier this month, Alvarez criticized the city clerk, contending that she was influenced by a "political agenda," remarks that led other council members to take Alvarez to task for her comments.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.